| Literature DB >> 32455763 |
Alcides Moreno Fortes1,2,3,4, Lili Tian1,2,3,4, E Scott Huebner5.
Abstract
Given the shortcomings of previous research on occupational stress and mental health (e.g., predominantly in Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) societies, based on the traditional mental health model and a lack of comparative studies), this study aimed to (a) examine the relationship between occupational stress and complete mental health among employees in Cabo Verde and China, and also explored the mediation and moderation roles of burnout and optimism in accounting for the empirical link. Mental health was defined as comprised of two distinguishable factors: positive and negative mental health. The Pearson correlation test, structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis, bootstrap analysis, hierarchical moderated regression and an independent t-test were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that, in both countries, occupational stress showed a negative relation to positive mental health and lower psychopathology symptoms-and job burnout mediated the relation between occupational stress and mental health. Optimism moderated the relation between occupational stress and burnout, but not the relation between occupational stress and complete mental health. The results are interpreted in light of the comparative framework.Entities:
Keywords: Cabo Verde; China; burnout; complete mental health; employee; occupational stress; optimism
Year: 2020 PMID: 32455763 PMCID: PMC7277686 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103629
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The theoretical framework. Note. OSQ—GV (Occupational Stress Questionnaire—General Version); MBI-GS (Maslach Burnout General Inventory Scale including exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy); LOT-R (Revised Life Orientation Test), MHC—SF (Mental Health Continuum—Short Form including psychological, emotional and social well-being); MHI-5 (Five-item Mental Health Inventory including anxiety and depression).
Demographic profile of the overall sample.
| Cabo Verdean Employees ( | Chinese Employees (177) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables |
| % | Variables |
| % |
| Gender | Gender | ||||
| male | 188 | 71.5 | male | 77 | 43.5 |
| female | 75 | 28.5 | female | 100 | 56.5 |
| Age | Age | ||||
| 20–29 years old | 37 | 14.1 | 20–29 years old | 104 | 58.4 |
| 30–39 years old | 164 | 62.4 | 30–39 years old | 39 | 22.0 |
| 40–49 years old | 55 | 20.9 | 40–49 years old | 20 | 11.2 |
| 50 years old | 7 | 2.7 | 50 years old | 11 | 6.2 |
| Marital status | Marital status | ||||
| married | 49 | 18.6 | married | 73 | 41.6 |
| divorced | 7 | 2.7 | divorced | 6 | 3.3 |
| single | 207 | 78.7 | single | 98 | 53.3 |
| Education level | Education level | ||||
| university degree | 130 | 49.4 | university degree | 139 | 78.6 |
| high school degree | 133 | 50.6 | high school degree | 38 | 21.4 |
| Work year | Work year | ||||
| 1–5 | 51 | 19.4 | 1–5 | 100 | 56.5 |
| 6–10 | 73 | 27.8 | 6–10 | 33 | 18.7 |
| 11–20 | 119 | 45.2 | 11–20 | 22 | 12.4 |
| more than 20 | 20 | 7.6 | more than 20 | 22 | 12.4 |
| Weekly work time | Weekly work time | ||||
| 40 h | 73 | 27.8 | 40 h | 94 | 53.1 |
| more than 40 h | 190 | 72.2 | more than 40 h | 83 | 46.9 |
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, the means, the standard deviations and the Pearson correlation coefficients.
| Variables | α | MD | SD | Skew | Kurt | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabo Verde | |||||||||
| OSQ—GV | 0.93 | 2.10 | 0.74 | −0.17 | −0.51 | - | |||
| LOT-R | 0.86/67 | 18.6 | 3.92 | −0.58 | 0.36 | −0.26 ** | - | ||
| MHC—SF | 0.89 | 12.3 | 2.39 | −0.12 | −0.47 | −0.30 ** | 0.42 ** | - | |
| MHI-5 | 0.79 | 3.58 | 0.77 | −0.27 | −0.45 | −0.25 ** | 0.32 ** | 0.36 ** | - |
| MBI-GS | 0.72 | 2.72 | 0.61 | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.63 ** | −0.29 ** | −0.22 ** | −0.30 ** |
| China | |||||||||
| OSQ—GV | 0.94 | 2.94 | 0.71 | 0.21 | 0.67 | - | |||
| LOT-R | 0.75/67 | 2.69 | 0.53 | 0.31 | 1.00 | 0.27 ** | - | ||
| MHC—SF | 0.94 | 15.9 | 3.71 | −0.20 | −0.02 | −0.35 ** | −0.43 ** | - | |
| MHI-5 | 0.79 | 3.91 | 1.04 | −0.14 | −0.33 | −0.29 ** | −0.46 ** | 0.62 ** | - |
| MBI-GS | 0.87 | 4.14 | 0.85 | −0.14 | 2.5 | 0.62 ** | 0.08 | −0.27 ** | −0.14 * |
Note. (** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05.) (Occupational Stress Questionnaire—General Version: OSQ—GV); (Maslach Burnout General Inventory Scale: MBI-GS); (Revised Life Orientation Test: LOT-R) (Mental Health Continuum—Short Form: MHC—SF); (Five-item Mental Health Inventory: MHI-5).
Figure 2The Mediation model test results. Note. OSQ—GV = S1 to S7 subscales of occupational stress; MBI-GS = (EX = exhaustion–energy, CY = cynicism–involvement); MHC—SF = (PWB = Psychological well-being, EWB = Emotional well-being, SWB = Social well-being); MHI-5 = (DEP = Depression, ANX = Anxiety), (* p < 0.05.).
Bootstrap results for the indirect effect.
| Model Pathways | β Standardized | 95% CI Indirect Effect | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| Cabo Verdean | ||||
| OSQ—GV← MBI-GS ←MHC—SF | −0.360 | −0.778 | −0.017 | 0.002 |
| OSQ—GV ← MBI-GS ← MHI-5 | −0.249 | −0.645 | −0.034 | 0.028 |
| Chinese | ||||
| OSQ—GV ← MBI-GS ← MHC—SF | −0.153 | −0.254 | −0.005 | 047 |
| OSQ—GV ← MBI-GS ← MHI-5 | −0.240 | −0.511 | −0.055 | 004 |
Note. OSQ—GV = occupational stress; MBI-GS = burnout; MHC—SF = positive mental health; MHI-5 = negative mental health relation.
Figure A1The moderation model of the test results. Note. ZOSQ—GV = occupational stress; ZLOT-R = optimism; ZMBI-GS = burnout; ZMHC—SF = positive mental health, ZMHI-5 = negative mental health relation (Z = means all variables are centred).
Figure 3Graphic representation of the interaction between occupational stress and optimism in predicting employee job burnout.
Mean differences between the Cabo Verdean (n = 263) and the Chinese employees (n = 177).
| Variables | Cabo Verdean | Chinese | Independent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (S.D.) | Mean (S.D.) | Difference in Mean | ||
| Relationship with clients | 7.93 (3.61) | 11.3 (3.43) | −3.44 | −9.99 ** |
| Relationship with supervisor | 7.07 (2.62) | 8.32 (2.94) | −124 | −4.63 ** |
| Relationship with colleagues | 6.36 (2.58) | 7.63 (2.53) | −1.27 | −5.12 ** |
| Work overload | 21.6 (2.94) | 12.3 (4.05) | 9.29 | 27.8 ** |
| Career and remuneration | 9.16 (3.23) | 12.7 (3.22) | −3.62 | −11.5 ** |
| Family problems | 6.89 (2,75) | 8.85 (2.93) | −1.95 | −7.13 ** |
| Working conditions | 5.48 (2.58) | 8.62 (2.56) | −3.14 | −12.5 ** |
| Exhaustion–energy | 10.8 (6.33) | 20.1 (6.18) | −9.23 | −15.1 ** |
| Cynicism–involvement | 4.57 (4.36) | 20.9 (4.51) | −16.3 | −38 ** |
| Professional efficacy | 21.3 (3.85) | 21.0 (4.84) | 0.31 | 0.75 |
| Psychological well-being | 4.35 (0.99) | 11.4 (3.74) | −7.09 | −29.2 ** |
| Social well-being | 3.60 (0.98) | 18.7 (5.80) | −15.1 | −41.3 ** |
| Emotional well-being | 4.37 (0.80) | 24.6 (2.37) | −20.2 | −48.4 ** |
| Anxiety | 6.97 (1.78) | 6.29 (1.54) | 0.67 | 4.12 ** |
| Depression | 10.9 (2.55) | 9.62 (6.71) | 1.30 | 5.41 ** |
| Scales | ||||
| OSQ—GV | 2.10 (0.74) | 2.94 (0.71) | −0.84 | −11.8 ** |
| MBI-GS | 2.72 (0.61) | 4.14 (0.85) | −1.41 | −20 ** |
| LOT-R | 9.90 (2.33) | 2.69 (0.53) | 7.20 | 40.4 ** |
| MHC—SF | 12.3 (2.39) | 15.9 (3.71) | −3.58 | −12.3 ** |
| MHI-5 | 3.58 (0.77) | 3.91 (1.04) | −0.33 | −3.82 ** |
Note. ** p < 0.01. (Occupational Stress Questionnaire—General Version: OSQ—GV); (Maslach Burnout General Inventory Scale: MBI-GS); (Revised Life Orientation Test: LOT-R) (Mental Health Continuum—Short Form: MHC—SF); (Five-item Mental Health Inventory: MHI-5).